Alok Singh, J. - (1.) PRESENT petition is filed challenging the order dated 28.9.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, thereby allowing the revision filed by one of the co -accused and directing to summon the present revisionist under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial for an offence under Sections 408/420/467/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case are that FIR was registered on 23.9.1996 on the behest of the present revisionist (complainant) under Sections 408/420/467/468/471/120B IPC at Police Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. However, during the investigation, name of the complainant/revisionist was included in the array of accused and the challan was filed before the Magistrate in the year 1996. Thereafter, on further investigation present revisionist was not found involved and supplementary challan was filed by the police placing name of the revisionist in column 2. However, learned Magistrate did not agree with the supplementary challan placing name of the revisionist in column 2 and refused to discharge the revisionist and consequently charges were framed against the revisionist. Order of the learned Judicial Magistrate dated 17.10.2000 refusing to discharge the revisionist and deciding to frame charges against the revisionist was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 14 of 2001. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra (Revisional Court) vide order dated 14.2.2003 was pleased to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and has directed to discharge the revisionist. Order of the learned Revisional Court dated 14.2.2003 was not challenged and has attained the finality. In the trial before the Magistrate after the evidence of the prosecution, accused has moved an application under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to summon the revisionist as an additional accused to face the trial. Application moved by co -accused Suraj Bhan was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 9.9.2010. Co -accused Suraj Bhan thereafter has approached the Sessions Judge by way of filing revision No. 53/2000, which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 28.9.2010. Hence present revision.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.;